Grindr Admits It Shared HIV Status Of Users
The same-sex dating app Grindr responded Monday to revelations that it allowed third parties to view the HIV status of users, saying its customers had the option not to supply sensitive information. Grindr acknowledged that information on users' HIV status, including the date they were last tested for the virus, was shared with two companies – Apptimize and Localytics, who were paid to monitor and analyze how the app was being used.
News that the app was sharing the data first appeared in a story by Buzzfeed on Monday. Buzzfeed wrote: "Because the HIV information is sent together with users' GPS data, phone ID, and email, it could identify specific users and their HIV status, according to Antoine Pultier, a researcher at the Norwegian nonprofit SINTEF, which first identified the issue."
In a point-by-point response on its Tumblr page, Grindr said: "It's important to remember that Grindr is a public forum. We give users the option to post information about themselves including HIV status and last test date, and we make it clear in our privacy policy that if you choose to include this information in your profile, the information will also become public." Grindr also said that the information was encrypted and that the company "has never, nor will we ever sell personally identifiable user information – especially information regarding HIV status or last test date – to third parties or advertisers."
San Francisco's ABC7 spoke to Alec Nygard, a user of the app, who said it allows the option of posting "negative," "negative on PrEp," "positive," or "positive-undetected status."
Also at CNN, The Guardian, Bloomberg, and TechCrunch.
Related: Health Insurer Aetna Accidentally Exposes Customers' HIV Statuses With Transparent Envelope Windows
Related Stories
A health insurer has accidentally exposed the HIV status of some customers with letters that can be partially read through a clear piece of plastic:
Health insurance company Aetna "stunned" some of its customers last month when it accidentally made their HIV statuses visible from the outside of envelopes, two legal groups said Thursday. The letters, which contained information about changes in pharmacy benefits and access to HIV medications, were sent to about 12,000 customers across multiple states, Aetna confirmed in a statement.
For some of these customers, a plastic window on the envelope exposed not only the patient's name and address, but also a reference to filling prescriptions for HIV medications. This meant that whoever picked up the mail that day — a family member, a friend, a postal worker — would have been able to see the confidential information, according to the Legal Action Center and the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania. It is not known exactly how many customers were affected.
Attorneys from both legal groups wrote to Aetna on Thursday demanding that the company immediately stop sending customers mail that "illegally discloses that they are taking HIV medication." It also demanded that the insurer take necessary measures to make sure such a breach doesn't happen again.
The legal groups wrote on behalf of Aetna customers in Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, according to their letter. The attorneys have so far received 23 complaints regarding the misstep, and more continue to come in, CNN reported.
The Legal Action Center and the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania provided this image of a Brooklyn, NY customer's letter, attached to their demand letter (PDF). The text reads: "Dear [REDACTED], The purpose of this letter is to advise you of options [...] Aetna health plan when filing prescriptions for HIV Medic [...] members can use a retail pharmacy or a mail order pharma".
Also at BBC, NPR, and STAT News.
A third-party app can use Grindr to expose your exact location
Back in March, a report revealed that Grindr suffered from flaws that could expose its users' personal information. The company issued a statement in response that said its location tracking feature is more akin to a square on an atlas and can't pinpoint users' exact location. According to a new investigation by Queer Europe, though, Grindr can still expose people's personal data through a third-party app called "Fuckr," which was released in 2015 and can locate up to 600 Grindr users within minutes. And by "locate," we mean it can tell where users are with an accuracy of 6 to 16 feet -- accurate enough to tell which establishment, house or even room they're in.
The free third party app is built on top of Grindr's private API, giving it access to the gay dating app's database. It uses a technique called "trilateration" to find users, allowing anyone with access to it a way to follow people around as they go about their day. All someone has to do to find users nearby is to use Fuckr's filters, which can narrow people based on their ethnicity, relationships and other data. Yes, because the app can tap into Grindr's database, it can reveal not only users' locations, but also their photo, body type, ethnicity, HIV status, last HIV test and even their sexual position preference.
Previously: Researchers Find Data Leaks in Instagram, Grindr, Oovoo, And More
Grindr Shared Users' HIV Status With Third Parties
Related: Gay dating app Grindr plans to go public after Chinese parent gives go-ahead
How Grindr Is Reinventing Itself as More Than Just a Dating App
Misguided Appeal in Grindr Case Is Latest Threat to Online Free Speech
U.S. Man Blamed for Singapore Data Leak on 14,200 HIV+ Patients
Records of as many as 14,200 people with HIV and their 2,400 contacts have been "illegally disclosed online", Singapore's health ministry said in a statement, marking the second cyberattack the city-state has suffered in a year.
The HIV-registry data was leaked by a U.S. citizen, Mikhy K. Farrera Brochez, who was deported from Singapore after serving jail time for fraud and drug-related offenses, the ministry said. The leaked information included names, test results and contact details of 5,400 Singaporean citizens and 8,800 foreigners.
The latest data spill comes less than a year after a cyberattack on SingHealth that had exposed the medical data of about 1.5 million people, including outpatient details of the Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. This breach is especially problematic since it compromises the identity of those living with HIV in a region which there's still a lot of social stigma around the condition.
Related: Health Insurer Aetna Accidentally Exposes Customers' HIV Statuses With Transparent Envelope Windows
Grindr Shared Users' HIV Status With Third Parties
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:08PM (3 children)
When do we expect individuals to take responsibility for their own choices?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2018, @08:36PM (2 children)
Just as soon as you figure out how to get users to scroll through 60 pages of legalese and actually understand it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 03 2018, @09:53PM
Legalese that in many cases is specifically designed to be unreadable so they can hide something egregious on page 99.
(Without even getting into the question of whether these click-through "contracts" are even legal in the first place)
(Score: 2) by rigrig on Tuesday April 03 2018, @10:20PM
You don't need to actually read ToS to understand them, there are basically* two variants:
1) "60 pages of legalese": somewhere in those 60 pages it tells you we will sell whatever data we can get our grubby hands on
2) "Simple terms stating we won't sell your data": we're lying
* Of course there are some exceptions, which usually have their policy hidden away on some obscure wiki page [soylentnews.org], don't really care about your data, and in fact would prefer you kept the private stuff to yourself (and might even make some effort to get rid of it, if you do insist on sharing it).
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:13PM (3 children)
At least there's no straight/gay option that could out the users.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:36PM (1 child)
Is that a problem with Grindr? A lot of hetero males looking for women? Are those the once looking to get in on some lesbian action or is there a large 'gay-4-pay' market there?
Really?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:57PM
I hear you can find more than what you expect there, such as a room to rent (by changing your profile description to offer one or something). As to the rest, I expect there is some of that but it is probably marginal compared to the main attraction of dudes hooking up with other dudes.
I detect a whiff of chromass with that dept. line.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:45PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 03 2018, @07:51PM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 03 2018, @08:43PM (11 children)
Look, this isn't a nice thing to say, but it needs it: there is a reason gay men have such awful STD rates. There is some truth to the stereotype about men being horny all the time from the looks of it, so I can imagine that when it's *two* men they're probably slutting around like crazy. Gay women are at the exact opposite end of the spectrum: we're the cleanest in just about every metric bar, if I remember right, one mild form of chlamydia.
This stems more from how men in general see sex than about gay men specifically, I think. It's just that when you have two men, there isn't even the pretense of a limiter re: one partner having a constitutionally lower sex drive or different attitude to sex. Plus, men are...messy. Sex with men is risky business even for straight couples. Not that it's all pure and clean in lady-love-land either, but I've rarely ever heard of a lesbian with an STD...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday April 03 2018, @09:30PM (5 children)
While I think you may have an element of truth, such assumptions are akin to "Mac's don't get viruses". Sleep around, either partner, your risk of getting an STD increases. Period.
Gorgos and Marazzo (2011) [oup.com] may have been the study you were seeking which reports higher chlamydia rates and lower HSV prevalence for lesbians rather than bisexual or heterosexuals. It was not non-zero, however, and the rate wasn't all that much lower. It also reported a possible increased rate of bacterial vaginosis. Quoting from that study, "WSW are at risk of acquiring bacterial, viral, and protozoal STIs from both female and male partners. WSW should not be presumed to be at low or no risk for STIs based on stated sexual orientation. Effective screening requires a comprehensive and open discussion of sexual and behavioral risks, beyond sexual identity, between health care providers and their female clients."
The anecdotal, "men are hornier so are at increased risk," is tempting but far from universally applicable. You can find all levels of sex drive in both men and women. More in males? Maybe, but I'd want the quantitative evidence first. And that's all I have to say about that.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 03 2018, @09:55PM (4 children)
All fair points, but please keep in mind "WSW" is not the same as "hardcore, gayer than Ellen, gold star lesbian." I will bet good money a lot of STDs in the "WSW" community came from bisexual women, who themselves got it from men who slept with Artemis-alone-knows-who.
The solution is the same for all people of all sexes and orientations: know your STD status, get any prospective partners tested too, don't sleep around. I've only ever had two lovers, and if my ex hadn't turned out to be nuttier than a squirrel-and-peanut-butter-banana milkshake, that number would only be one. It baffles me how many people seem to love sleeping around and how much.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday April 04 2018, @02:17AM (1 child)
People vary enormously in this regard, and I rather doubt that there's a significant level of actual understanding commonly linking the various extremes. Nor, I think, does there need to be, at least beyond "live and let live."
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 04 2018, @02:37AM
Some peoples' behavior is a public health risk. I don't know what to do about it that wouldn't make the situation worse; raising their insurance premiums, for example, would just make them LESS likely to get treated and spread diseases more. And it's somewhere between creepy and outright Orwellian to inquire into peoples' sexual history re: number of partners in just about any circumstance I can think of.
So yes, live and let live, but when someone else's "live" makes it harder for others to "live," we have a problem :(
Also, it's not that I don't want sex, I just don't want it with anyone but my girlfriend. I've actually got a weirdly high libido for a woman.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday April 04 2018, @12:50PM (1 child)
Noted. And the study I cited does show that bisexual female transmission rates appear (likely are indeed) higher - didn't want to say you weren't on to something. I read somewhere (sorry no cite) that one notion is that the proteins of seminal fluid are superior to vaginal secretions as a pathogenic carrier medium (a not terribly distinguishing feature of male 'superiority').
On the purely anecdotal level with nothing but talking-out-my-own-ass for authority, I remember being exposed to the idea that if sexual drive's prime mover is propagation of the species men ought to have the desire to see their gametes placed as many times and locations as possible while women are biologically limited to having one gamete in development at any one time. The physiology of human reproduction thus encourages male promiscuity constantly while women are less so motivated. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (for whatever that is worth) also seems to state there is a straight female equivalent of when a woman is prepared for ovulation there being a greater level of desire for other men [sagepub.com] (distributive genetics desire maybe?) I also came across something in a TedX talk somewhere that said something like when one has an affair there is a reaction of pleasure based on the notion of change (cf. "seven year itch").
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 04 2018, @07:37PM
Yeah, that all makes perfect evolutionary sense...given how male and female bodies work, it couldn't be otherwise, and before modern society where half your kids died before age 5 and you were lucky to live to 40, any other arrangement would have resulted in extinction :( But the whole point of intelligence and civilization is so we can tell mother nature where to stick it and do better than we'd be able to do naturally, right...? What a mess.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04 2018, @12:31AM (3 children)
It's because we don't provide gay men with real sex ed. We also don't do a good job of providing treatment.
The other part is that a small number of gay men have a tremendous amount of sex with most others having about as many partners as straight couples.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday April 04 2018, @10:51AM (2 children)
I'd be really interested to see a study (if such a thing could be made) comparing levels of promiscuity in the gay community according to how accepted homosexuality is in larger community. It's just my gut feeling, but I wouldn't be in the least surprised to learn that promiscuous behaviour is more likely in places where people have to keep their sexuality a secret. I would certainly expect safe sexual practises to be a lot less likely. Are gay people more monogamous in San Francisco than in Saudi Arabia? Anyone able to offer any insight?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday April 04 2018, @04:45PM
It would surprise me if such a study could be created with any degree of accuracy. By definition a place where homosexuality is criminalized will be much harder to extract reliable data from and I wouldn't rely upon things like arrest rate. That doesn't mean it isn't out there, though, just that I can't find anything easily.
I would expect, if one accepts that promiscuity is a function of hormonal drives, that there wouldn't be a lot of change. Those drives wouldn't change one way or the other just because the behavior is criminalized - though I'll admit the behavior might.... Instead I'd expect the actions would be pushed underground where detection is harder. And like you I'd foresee safe sex practice to be less practiced due to lack of open information about it. There is apparently some work [nih.gov] on whether mating strategies of social conservative versus social liberal affect the condemnation of same-sex marriage. Dunno if that's addresses the point at all.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday April 04 2018, @04:56PM
An an interesting though unscientific follow up: The myth of gay male promiscuity. [theguardian.com]
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday April 04 2018, @05:00AM
Needs to be said. It's easier for an infectious thing to survive transport when transported via a load into your asshole, which is designed to absorb fluids. I didn't read the rest of what you said - it's clearly some weird theory based on lack of knowledge. Might as well listen to a church preacher.
knowledge is power. get some.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday April 03 2018, @11:01PM (1 child)
Don't know if this was from the submitter, or the editor added it. But this is FAR from a related story, other than that both mention HIV status.
A health insurer MUST have information on your health status to do their job - you can't realistically get health care without disclosing this sort of information. Accordingly, health providers and insurers are required by some very strict laws to keep that information highly confidential (HIPPA and friends). You don't really "choose" to disclose information to a health insurer. Consequently, when a health insurer discloses (even accidentally) the private information you were obligated to share with them without really having a choice in the matter, it's a big, huge, screaming deal.
When an individual elects to voluntarily provide health-related information to a third party, knowing they will post that information (along with other personal information, like your photos) publicly, it's a very different situation. That doesn't mean that it's OK for a company like Grindr that claims it will keep your "personal identifying information" confidential to act otherwise - if they violated their disclosure policy, it's a significant breech of trust. But a social media app oversharing data you voluntarily provided is not really the same as a trusted, regulated health care provider disclosing the same data.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 03 2018, @11:29PM
I submitted it with that, and I do consider it at least loosely related. It's the only such story on the site before this one.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04 2018, @05:36AM
No matter how much some lovely corp tells you their shit is encrypted and they will never sell it to anybody...
Often both are blatant lies anyways and when they arent, encryption can be botched or they might have plain text versions laying about or the key could be sitting there next to the cyphertext, etc... Regarding the no sell thing, even if they are true to that, do you realize what happens when the company is sold or goes bankrupt? Yeah, all your precious nuggets are now in public domain.
IF YOU DONT WANT YOUR SHIT PUBLIC, DO NOT UPLOAD IT TO THE INTARWEBS
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday April 04 2018, @01:41PM (7 children)
HIV is not a "gay" disease, as at least one commenter implied above.
The most rapidly growing demographic segment of HIV infection in the United States are straight heterosexual women. Part of the reason for that increase is the mistaken belief that HIV is a "gay man's disease". It isn't. And if you think it is, get it out of your head because you're only helping the virus spread further thanks to misinformation.
It is a virus that destroys the cells that ordinarily fight viruses (T-lymphocytes), acquired through transmission across bodily fluids (blood, seminal, vaginal). It is very serious, however, the more quickly it is detected in an individual the better the prognosis for that person is in terms of length and quality of life.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday April 05 2018, @10:18AM (6 children)
It can of course infect straight people, but saying HIV is not a "gay" disease is pretty disingenuous. It's way more prevalent among gay men than among the straight population. This isn't just some silly stereotype, and it's not helpful to pretend that it's not the case.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday April 05 2018, @06:02PM (5 children)
And doing so disregards the 39% of new HIV infections that weren't MSM transmitted.
And the preliminary numbers for 2016 are actually only 33% if I did my math right, but the point still carries. ( https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-report-2016-vol-28.pdf [cdc.gov] ) However, if one looks not at new infection but overall infection, gay male homosexual contact is responsible for only 49% of all current cases, and the rate of AIDS is the same (50%). <sarcasm>So do you want to call it only a half-gay disease then?</sarcasm>
Believing it is a gay disease leads to the incorrect conclusion, "I'm not gay so I can't get it." Believing so leads to people thinking they don't need to get checked. Believing so spreads the disease faster among non-gay people. Which is wrong.
Treatment of it is equally validity to gay and non-gay alike (depending more on how soon treatment begins after infection), but homophobia and harassment of persons and the false negative stereotype of the disease causes problems in getting those who need treatment - more among non-gays than anyone. (Oooh, if I'm positive people will think I'm gay! :( And just in case anyone is uninformed, treatment is not a cure. Instead treatment attempts to conserve and shore up the body's T-lymphocytes so they continue to fight the co-morbid diseases which usually result in death. Treated individuals transmissibility falls to zero by a couple of sources I've read.)
It is a fluid-transmitted disease that disproportionately affects LBGT individuals (particularly gay men). (Yeah, receptive anal sex is the highest per 10,000 exposures reception rate. So what?) It doesn't give a SHIT if you're gay or not, only if you've exchanged fluids with a positive person whether that person is gay, straight, combination, or even asexual in a way that the virus can pass.
It is not a gay disease.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday April 06 2018, @10:00AM (4 children)
Yeah yeah. I suspect that you see my point, and you're just being obtuse.
'Gay disease' isn't a real term. It's not clear whether it means A disease that only affects gays, or A disease that disproportionately affects gays. It's unhelpful for you to pretend the term has a clear meaning.
No-one out there seriously thinks that only gay people can get HIV.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday April 06 2018, @05:45PM (3 children)
I wish I were being obtuse. But I'm not. [bbc.com] And actually for the politician referenced I appreciate that he was willing to admit his misconception, even though he was lambasted in public for admitting he was wrong until he spoke with someone knowledgeable.
When 25-53% of persons in the U.S. (stratified by age) express incorrect ideas about ways HIV can be transmitted (p. 15) [wordpress.com], I wouldn't take what people do and don't believe or might seriously think for granted. You might be generally right that a majority of people do not think only gay people can contract it. There are no recent studies specifically asking if it's homosexual-only contractible that I'm aware of. But I've seen documentaries where women who contracted it said they didn't really conceive of the possibility they could contract it. I've had teenagers tell me personally they aren't gay so they aren't at risk. Literally, "that's a gay disease," and clarifying that term that's what they meant by it.
And since the majority of this topic (including myself) expressed opinions focusing on homosexual dimensions of the problem - which as I've acknowledged is where a majority of cases occur - it is then even more important to remind ourselves that they aren't the only ones who can be affected. Which you might think of as too obvious it shouldn't be mentioned, but since I know differently I don't care.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday April 10 2018, @06:54PM (2 children)
Damn, that's all very depressing. Looks like you're right that large numbers of people have no idea.
I maintain though that it's never helpful to use a term as unclear as 'gay disease', and if you sound like you're saying there's no particular connection between homosexuality and HIV, you just undermine yourself.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday April 11 2018, @06:06PM (1 child)
Some do, some don't. Percentages I don't know, but I'd like to know how extensive the misinformation is. My comments came from an "obvious to me from my experience" place (others wrongly use that term) that someone who hasn't experienced what I have might not see. You're right that it's unclear and shouldn't be used; overturning the stereotypes associated with homosexuality might help. I'll think about how to differently express that there are relationships (obviously, given the disproportion) but it's not causal nor really correlative (in an overall sense).
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:48AM
Let's talk plainly: it's far more easily transmitted through anal sex than through coitus. That doesn't count as "correlative (in an overall sense)"? The fact that it's so prevalent in gay men isn't a coincidence. It helps no-one to pretend that it is. At worst, you look like you're being deliberately misleading, or even outright dishonest, in the name of political correctness.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday April 06 2018, @02:14AM
I'll ask about HIV on the Census. So we can figure out what the hell is going on.